Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation

On 25 Nov 2006 10:41:40 -0800, "a_plutonium"
wrote:

[. . .]

And the second lesson, is that if you want to create new physics, I
advise you to research when the old and famous physicists went from the
old idea to the new idea, for in that transition gets to the heart of
the foundation of that area of physics.

The reason Dirac believed a magnetic monopole exists, and I proved him
correct, is that Dirac in his mind, knew that the Cosmos is more
beautiful mathematically for a monopole to exist and ugly if it does
not exist. Dirac's mind just had to combine Saturn's Ring with space an
ocean of positrons, and he would have seen his magnetic monopole.

Thank you, oh master empiric of the universe.

~v~~

old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

Now, with Space being Dirac's ocean of Positrons we iron out all the
asymmetry of the old Maxwell Equations and they become the new Maxwell
Equations with another displacement current in the Faraday law:

New Maxwell Equations:

Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i


The above is how I wrote it some weeks and months ago. I recognized
that I did not have it ironed out in my mind as to the "negative signs"
in the old and new equations. There is a negative sign in the Faraday
Law to accomodate Lenz's Law where direction of magnetic induction is
opposite. It involves conservation of energy in Lenz's Law.

But on a deeper level, I wonder if the fact that Space is Positrons has
some role in why Faraday's Law is negative sign yet Ampere Law remained
positive sign.

Weeks and months ago when I wrote the above, I just put in the new
terms to make symmetrical and eliminate the asymmetry of the old
Maxwell Equations, however, I need to be sure the negative signs yield
"perfect symmetry" with the new fact of Space = positrons with the base
foundation theory of the Atom Totality.

So, does the new term of a Displacement Current in the Faraday Law also
be negative sign? And does the new term of a nonzero Gauss magnetism
law (no magnetic monopole) be negative?

At the moment I am reasoning that they are negative terms, but these
things are tricky. And as a algebraic sum the 4 equations should
algebraically add to zero in the Atom Totality.

Tentatively the revised Maxwell Equations should look like this:

Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = (-)q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) (-)dB/dt + (-)u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

The two existing monopoles of the Gauss law would be Space itself is
one gigantic monopole since it is a conglomerate of positrons and +
charged and the other monopole is all the mass/matter observed in the
cosmos because the conglomerate of all mass and matter are electrons of
the Atom Totality and overall it is - charged.

So the revised Gauss Law of magnetism is negative q/e whereas the Gauss
Law of electricity is positive q/e. And when algebraically added they
are zero.

And the Gauss law of magnetism is most often equal to zero, because
mass matter presents itself in experiments as bipolar, and the only
monopoles are the two cosmic monopoles of all space, and all mass.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

you've changed the whole, bizarre missing matter thing
into a new quandary:
where'd all the negative nucleii go?

anyway, seeing that the planets are mostly neutral,
as wholes, what difference does this positive space make?

thus:
I didn't know that pyrite came
in an icosahedal package, two!

http://www.mindat.org/min-3314.html

(click on "Pyrite 7,"
hold left mousebutton over the icon & hit "m,"
to see the vector-stuff.)

thus:
there was some progress with special cases
of the 4-body problem, but the three-body is supposed
to be generally intractable....
Newton is just an algebraization of Kepler;
they're, both, 2-body orbital constraints....
it should be noted, however,
that better models along the lines of Kepler's,
of the nested polyhedra, have been developed,
as published in *21st C. Science and Technology*.

The Kepler laws only function for two isolated masses.
The efect of Sun on the system Earth-Moon is not counted.
The parabolic orbits of the comets are not included.

NB: Gauss didn't bother with Newton's thing for that,
I assume. Newton's "laws" indeed are the two-body problem,
with the proviso that he stole the inverse-second-power "law"
from Hooke, whose portraits were burned by President N.

this just in:
yesterday's (Tues,. Nov.15) *UCLA Daily Bruin* finally noted that
darfur is entirely Muslim, though downplaying it AMAP.

thus:
Dick Cheeny, Don Rumsfeld and Osama bin Latin form a mission
to Darfur, to prevent a war instead of to start one:
if Darfur is "100% Muslim," then
what's really going on, there?
is it just aother British Quag for USA soldiers to get bogged
into, with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ad vomitorium,
under auspices of the UN and NATO?
why won't the Bruin publish the fact of Islam on the ground,
therein?

thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?

--The Other Side (if it exists)

Math is the TOOL that must take the responsibility for destroying knowledge
of basic truths.
Anyone using math to preside over anything other than numbers is the false
GOD.
Just because some mathmatically gifted person can express a situation
mathmatically does not make the basic premise
correct. While Math can save your ass, it cannot save it for the right
reason. Math can prove that anything can exist in any state chosen by the
Mathmatician.
I refuse to think that math as the sole proof of a theory. Hell,
mathmatically I am nonexistant and can do no harm but the mathmatician can
cause untold harm and feel unresponsible for it. Actually there is
responsible Math for which I am eternally grateful, I just dont like the
irresponsible math used by most physicists. Kind numbers, Lee Pugh


"Bob Kolker" wrote in message
...
a_plutonium wrote:

Keep in mind that the theory of gravity as the displacement current in
a Space of positrons contains the central idea of General Relativity--
mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent
space. But the Displacement theory of gravity pinpoints what the
concept of "Space" actually is. So that the predictions of General
Relativity may come into a close range of the actual numbers, that the
Displacement current theory should come even closer to the actual
numbers. And then this new theory of what gravity is, should predict

Why don't you stop the bull**** and do the calculations? Show us how
your crackpot theory makes correct predictions. Show the math. Show the
work, instead of waving your hands and flapping your gums.

If you have a theory (doubtful) you should be able to demonstrate by
specific calciulation what testable predictions it makes. Show the math.

Bob Kolker

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

New Maxwell Equations:

Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

On page 45 of "Directions in Physics" book Dirac explains how and why a
monopole is derived. And I was off on the history for I thought it was
derived solely from the Maxwell theory, because it was an argument as
to why electric charge was conserved. That you conserve electric charge
throughout the cosmos if at least one monopole exists. But Dirac
derives the monopole from the Schrodinger Equation.

He also says that a monopole strength is huge of 137/2 (e) on page 46.
And indeed, in an Atom Totality the ocean of positrons that make up
Space is a huge monopole. As well as the total mass and matter that
exists is another monopole. And Dirac discusses monopole to monopole
annihilation.

But what I am looking for is somewhere in Dirac's writing if he ever
played around with making Faraday law symmetrical to Ampere-Maxwell
law.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
I am going to post this to sci.math only for sometimes mathematicians
have a better answer than physicists as to symmetry issues and negative
signs are often a tricky problem.


a_plutonium wrote:
old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

Now, with Space being Dirac's ocean of Positrons we iron out all the
asymmetry of the old Maxwell Equations and they become the new Maxwell
Equations with another displacement current in the Faraday law:

New Maxwell Equations:

Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i


The above is how I wrote it some weeks and months ago. I recognized
that I did not have it ironed out in my mind as to the "negative signs"
in the old and new equations. There is a negative sign in the Faraday
Law to accomodate Lenz's Law where direction of magnetic induction is
opposite. It involves conservation of energy in Lenz's Law.

But on a deeper level, I wonder if the fact that Space is Positrons has
some role in why Faraday's Law is negative sign yet Ampere Law remained
positive sign.

Weeks and months ago when I wrote the above, I just put in the new
terms to make symmetrical and eliminate the asymmetry of the old
Maxwell Equations, however, I need to be sure the negative signs yield
"perfect symmetry" with the new fact of Space = positrons with the base
foundation theory of the Atom Totality.

So, does the new term of a Displacement Current in the Faraday Law also
be negative sign? And does the new term of a nonzero Gauss magnetism
law (no magnetic monopole) be negative?

At the moment I am reasoning that they are negative terms, but these
things are tricky. And as a algebraic sum the 4 equations should
algebraically add to zero in the Atom Totality.

Tentatively the revised Maxwell Equations should look like this:

Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = (-)q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) (-)dB/dt + (-)u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

The two existing monopoles of the Gauss law would be Space itself is
one gigantic monopole since it is a conglomerate of positrons and +
charged and the other monopole is all the mass/matter observed in the
cosmos because the conglomerate of all mass and matter are electrons of
the Atom Totality and overall it is - charged.

So the revised Gauss Law of magnetism is negative q/e whereas the Gauss
Law of electricity is positive q/e. And when algebraically added they
are zero.

And the Gauss law of magnetism is most often equal to zero, because
mass matter presents itself in experiments as bipolar, and the only
monopoles are the two cosmic monopoles of all space, and all mass.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

There is a charge conservation issue here isn't there?
When these positrons become absorbed by an atom the electrons will be
deleted right?
When they are radiated from the sun they will charge the sun up
negatively right?
It seems you will need some sort of a circulatory current or lightning
bolts, or without these effects as the charge builds the effect will
diminish itself.

I still like your thinking and particularly the atomic fundamental.

-Tim

Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:


There is a charge conservation issue here isn't there?

Yes, for conservation of electric charge to exist and we know it
exists, then there must exist at least one monopole in the Universe.
(pages 45,46 of Dirac's Directions in Physics). The Atom Totality would
say that Space itself as a ocean of positrons is one monopole, and the
antimonopole of Space is Mass/Matter which is all pieces of the
electrons of the Atom Totality. So the world has 2 monopoles. And we
need those 2 monopoles to confirm that conservation of electric charge
exists.

As a benefit, we get that gravity = the ocean of positrons attracting
ordinary matter.

When these positrons become absorbed by an atom the electrons will be
deleted right?

An atom has two regions. A nuclear region and a region where the
electrons outside the nucleus reside. In the nucleus there is no
"space" as we know it. There is no ocean of positrons in the nucleus
and thus there is no force of gravity in the nucleus. In the Electron
region of an atom, the instant that a electron exists, the space in
which it exists comes into being. Form an electron and you also form
the space in which that electron resides and that space is a positron.
We see Space as gravity. It appears as a vacuum to us, but it actually
is a dense form of invisible energy. It is positrons. What Dirac called
the Ocean of positrons.

When they are radiated from the sun they will charge the sun up
negatively right?

Whereever mass and matter exist in our cosmos, there is co-existing the
space in which that mass matter reside. And that space is a ocean of
positrons whose energy matches the "E = mc^2" of that mass matter. Our
Sun resides in a region where there are more positrons than Earth. The
force of gravity, and why Newtons apple fell towards the center of
Earth is because the positrons that make up space around Earth reside
more in the center of Earth and these positrons pull the apple into the
center of Earth.

It seems you will need some sort of a circulatory current or lightning
bolts, or without these effects as the charge builds the effect will
diminish itself.

You are confused. The Space = positrons = gravity = monopole does not
annihilate with ordinary matter as a matter to antimatter annihilation,
except in the case where the Space is so deformed such as in quasars.
Quasars are where positron to matter annihilation does occur. And as
noted by recent astronomers Schild and others that blackholes simply
cannot exist.

I still like your thinking and particularly the atomic fundamental.

-Tim

a_plutonium wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:


There is a charge conservation issue here isn't there?

Yes, for conservation of electric charge to exist and we know it
exists, then there must exist at least one monopole in the Universe.
(pages 45,46 of Dirac's Directions in Physics). The Atom Totality would
say that Space itself as a ocean of positrons is one monopole, and the
antimonopole of Space is Mass/Matter which is all pieces of the
electrons of the Atom Totality. So the world has 2 monopoles. And we
need those 2 monopoles to confirm that conservation of electric charge
exists.

As a benefit, we get that gravity = the ocean of positrons attracting
ordinary matter.

When these positrons become absorbed by an atom the electrons will be
deleted right?

An atom has two regions. A nuclear region and a region where the
electrons outside the nucleus reside. In the nucleus there is no
"space" as we know it. There is no ocean of positrons in the nucleus
and thus there is no force of gravity in the nucleus. In the Electron
region of an atom, the instant that a electron exists, the space in
which it exists comes into being. Form an electron and you also form
the space in which that electron resides and that space is a positron.
We see Space as gravity. It appears as a vacuum to us, but it actually
is a dense form of invisible energy. It is positrons. What Dirac called
the Ocean of positrons.

When they are radiated from the sun they will charge the sun up
negatively right?

Whereever mass and matter exist in our cosmos, there is co-existing the
space in which that mass matter reside. And that space is a ocean of
positrons whose energy matches the "E = mc^2" of that mass matter. Our
Sun resides in a region where there are more positrons than Earth. The
force of gravity, and why Newtons apple fell towards the center of
Earth is because the positrons that make up space around Earth reside
more in the center of Earth and these positrons pull the apple into the
center of Earth.


Physicists today who still do not believe or understand the above must
ask themselves why is it in all Experimental Physics that the so called
vacuum of Space when probed yields positrons? Why positrons? Why not
neutrinos or photons or neutrons or antiprotons? Why positrons?

The answer is that in the Atom Totality all the mass and matter are
bits and pieces of the electrons of the Atom Totality and that means
and demands that the Space be positrons.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

In article , wrote:

a_plutonium wrote:



I am probably the first scientist to give new students of science a

You are not any kind of a scientist. What have you published? What have
you accomplished? Has your work been peer reviewed? Have any of your
theories been tested? You are a crackpot with delusions of grandure.

Bob Kolker

Well stated, Bob (although I think by "theories" you really mean
hypotheses). The hard working researchers (like those at my place of
employment - sorry had to sneak that in) that do the things of which you
speak probably don't rely on usenet groups for enlightenment. "Archie"
has been spamming/trolling unmoderated physics and related newsgroups for
almost a decade. He vanished for a while during that period but now he's
baaaaaack. Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

a_plutonium wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:


There is a charge conservation issue here isn't there?

Yes, for conservation of electric charge to exist and we know it
exists, then there must exist at least one monopole in the Universe.
(pages 45,46 of Dirac's Directions in Physics). The Atom Totality would
say that Space itself as a ocean of positrons is one monopole, and the
antimonopole of Space is Mass/Matter which is all pieces of the
electrons of the Atom Totality. So the world has 2 monopoles. And we
need those 2 monopoles to confirm that conservation of electric charge
exists.

As a benefit, we get that gravity = the ocean of positrons attracting
ordinary matter.

When these positrons become absorbed by an atom the electrons will be
deleted right?

An atom has two regions. A nuclear region and a region where the
electrons outside the nucleus reside. In the nucleus there is no
"space" as we know it. There is no ocean of positrons in the nucleus
and thus there is no force of gravity in the nucleus. In the Electron
region of an atom, the instant that a electron exists, the space in
which it exists comes into being. Form an electron and you also form
the space in which that electron resides and that space is a positron.
We see Space as gravity. It appears as a vacuum to us, but it actually
is a dense form of invisible energy. It is positrons. What Dirac called
the Ocean of positrons.

When they are radiated from the sun they will charge the sun up
negatively right?

Whereever mass and matter exist in our cosmos, there is co-existing the
space in which that mass matter reside. And that space is a ocean of
positrons whose energy matches the "E = mc^2" of that mass matter. Our
Sun resides in a region where there are more positrons than Earth. The
force of gravity, and why Newtons apple fell towards the center of
Earth is because the positrons that make up space around Earth reside
more in the center of Earth and these positrons pull the apple into the
center of Earth.

It seems you will need some sort of a circulatory current or lightning
bolts, or without these effects as the charge builds the effect will
diminish itself.

You are confused. The Space = positrons = gravity = monopole does not
annihilate with ordinary matter as a matter to antimatter annihilation,
except in the case where the Space is so deformed such as in quasars.
Quasars are where positron to matter annihilation does occur. And as
noted by recent astronomers Schild and others that blackholes simply
cannot exist.

You've ignored this "does not annihilate" stance in my first question.
But since I find it here I now have to ask you is the positron that you
speak of the same as the positron that wiki speaks of?

"The positron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of
the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2,
and the same mass as an electron. When a low-energy positron collides
with a low-energy electron, annihilation occurs, resulting in the
production of two gamma ray photons (see electron-positron
annihilation)."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

I find antimatter to be troublesome. A good analogy is found in the
complex plane. There is a nice symmetry of the complex plane that goes
as follows:

Take yourself as an observer to a complex plane with no idea where the
origin or axes are or even their orientation left-handed or
right-handed. Position your feet. Upon snapping your fingers your feet
wind up at a new position with your feet together. The new point is the
superposition of your foot positions when you snap your left finger. It
is the product of these positions when you snap your right finger. Now
dance around and find the reference frame.

You will find that you can identify the origin and the real axis, but
the imaginary axis has perfect symmetry so you cannot ever actually say
which is the positive and which is the negative orientation.
Essentially it does not matter. What we choose to do with this seems to
be a free choice. But every time that we draw the complex plane out and
see that these axes are so well defined yet that they don't matter we
should pause, consider folding the plane in half along the real line,
and then carry on with our 2pi flat view. If we call one the antimatter
and the other the matter is doesn't matter which we choose; the other
is merely the inverse context. In effect it breaks the context of
antimatter by positing that actually those electrons in the outer shell
are positirons, etc., etc. The inverse model would also work perfectly
well wouldn't it? The choice to assign a signature is a dualistic
phenomenon. Whether this has any deeper consequences I am not sure. So
far it just slightly alleviates the burden of accounting for
antimatter. It does not remark on the imbalance of the two and so Sue's
addiction to the omnipresent pair is likeable, but then the existing
context requires major revision.

Perhaps by taking the plane to be literally two-sided we could make
some progress. Not just two-sided along the fold, but two sided front
to back. The doubling then redoubles generating a quadrature form. The
electron is subject to strange planar effects at low temperature. If we
are living a noisy version of a pure model then it does us no good to
seek an ambient model. We should seek the model down there and get the
one up here as a consequence.

Alot of your thinking has good integrity, but the annihilation part is
troublesome.
Sometimes we have to break more than one law at a time to be truly
good.
If you are going to make a break from the standard positron context
perhaps it should be put up front in you argument. Hiding it weakens
your position. Even an unresolved and conflicted model may be helpful
when taken in the form of a progression.

-Tim


I still like your thinking and particularly the atomic fundamental.

-Tim